Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2017 21:58:11 -0500
From: Peter Todd <pete@petertodd.org>
To: Bram Cohen <bram@bittorrent.com>
Message-ID: <20170224025811.GA31911@savin.petertodd.org>
References: <20170223011506.GC905@savin.petertodd.org>
	<CAAcC9ys5sUxVfOjogFiF3gzk51D_L=QQkOYevTH=qbh_RkA3Hw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CA+KqGkrUneGe4yORi=JAAWzoO0UftMUuJm3S-__W5sBh-+T1vQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<20170223235105.GA28497@savin.petertodd.org>
	<CA+KqGkowxEZeAFYa2JJchBDtRkg1p3YZNocivzu3fAtgRLDRBQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<20170224010943.GA29218@savin.petertodd.org>
	<CA+KqGkrOK76S3ffPJmpqYcBwtSeKESqN16yZsrwzDR6JZZmwFA@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256;
	protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="HlL+5n6rz5pIUxbD"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CA+KqGkrOK76S3ffPJmpqYcBwtSeKESqN16yZsrwzDR6JZZmwFA@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12)
Cc: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] A Better MMR Definition
Precedence: list


--HlL+5n6rz5pIUxbD
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Thu, Feb 23, 2017 at 06:50:10PM -0800, Bram Cohen wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 23, 2017 at 5:09 PM, Peter Todd <pete@petertodd.org> wrote:
>=20
> > I think you've misunderstood what TXO commitments are. From my article:
> >
> > "A merkle tree committing to the state of all transaction outputs, both
> > spent
> > and unspent, can provide a method of compactly proving the current state
> > of an
> > output."
> > -https://petertodd.org/2016/delayed-txo-commitments#txo-commitments:
> >
>=20
> The proposal on that page is of a tree which does require random access
> updates, it just positions entries in the order they happened to be added
> instead of sorting by their hash. Once you start updating it to indicate
> spent status all the exact same issues of TXO size and cache coherence on
> updates show up again, but now you're using a more complex bespoke data
> structure instead of a basic fundamental one.

Sorry, but I was replying to your statement:

> What you can't do with MMRs or the blockchain is make a compact proof that
> something is still in the utxo set, which is the whole point of utxo
> commitments.

So to be clear, do you agree or disagree with me that you *can* extract a
compact proof from a MMR that a given output is unspent?

I just want to make sure we're on the same page here before we discuss
performance characteristics.

--=20
https://petertodd.org 'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org

--HlL+5n6rz5pIUxbD
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: Digital signature

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJYr6FAAAoJECSBQD2l8JH7tmwIAK34ukxG2HFsKi7n1c87uam0
FcsxU1Kq7juomOxxVCdXuhvjspS32yx2yhMhQKZC8+fzICiPW4khfXAs4eqOUFDZ
Rhi7K02c5qEMQocH7t+rY5LBjy93rvosFEP6gbme8ezfC1TZDkaKwVAJs09VeP5X
MAJSdY5y7nIl1x5yC+bFhnnlajE0PyGoD0fZr/wuJ6YPaVFmEypBc5z5DK/oz5le
3UrV/VrjAtEhhpVbECjaWD2i/LpqcfB2r1973AYugkUpQQlv8z1xwwgIIeNqMHAc
hJXpZeT+E6rpatKcbjidU9fCclWkLTsfyFQ0QLvXdUn0bofsBfID8kzTcqjCqwU=
=0QRZ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--HlL+5n6rz5pIUxbD--